Quotes of the day

posted at 8:41 pm on November 22, 2013 by Allahpundit

If Congress wasn’t broken before, it certainly is now. What Reid (Nev.) and his fellow Democrats effectively did was take the chamber of Congress that still functioned at a modest level and turn it into a clone of the other chamber, which functions not at all. They turned the Senate into the House…

Certainly, Republicans have abused the dilatory tactics that Senate minorities have, for centuries, used with greater responsibility; they seem intent on bringing government to a halt. And the Senate in 2013 is hardly a healthy institution. Yet it has achieved far more than the House — passing bipartisan immigration legislation and a farm bill and working out deals to avoid default and to end the federal government shutdown — largely because, until Thursday, Senate rules required the majority party to win votes from the minority…

“Cloture has fostered more bipartisanship in the Senate,” Donald Ritchie, the Senate historian, told me Thursday after Reid detonated his nuclear device. “The majority leader of the Senate is expected to try to work out some kind of a bipartisan deal to get enough votes to get cloture. Because the House is run by majority rule, it is seen as a sign of weakness if the majority leadership of the House has to get votes from the minority side.”…

If it was possible to make things even worse in Washington, Reid just did it.

***

Ultimately, a small group of centrists — Republicans and Democrats — could find the muscle to hold the Senate at bay until bipartisan solutions can be found. But for the foreseeable future, Republicans, wounded and eager to show they have not been stripped of all power, are far more likely to unify against the Democrats who humiliated them in such dramatic fashion…

The rule change lowered to a simple 51-vote majority the threshold to clear procedural hurdles on the way to the confirmation of judges and executive nominees. But it did nothing to streamline the gantlet that presidential nominees run. Republicans may not be able to muster the votes to block Democrats on procedure, but they can force every nomination into days of debate between every procedural vote in the Senate book — of which there will be many…

“Today’s historic change to Senate rules escalates what is already a hyperpartisan atmosphere in Washington, which is already preventing Congress from addressing our nation’s most significant challenges,” said former Senator Olympia Snowe, a Republican, and former Representative Dan Glickman, a Democrat, in a joint statement from the Bipartisan Policy Center.

“It raises the stakes,” said Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), who has often remarked that “elections have consequences.”…

McCain suggested retribution was a distinct possibility. “There’s going to be a lot of anger,” McCain said. “What happens in January 2015, if Republicans are in the majority? ”

Asked what would happen, McCain offered an energetic snort, accidentally knocking a reporter’s recorder to the ground. “It depends on how angry people are. It depends on how badly [Democrats] abuse us,” said McCain, who had tried a day earlier to talk Reid out of going nuclear. “There may be Republicans who say, ‘They did it to us, so let’s do it to them.'”

***

The next GOP President should line up Federalist Society alumni for judicial nominations like planes waiting to take off at O’Hare International Airport. Imagine two or three more Clarence Thomases on the High Court confirmed with 51 Senate votes. Planned Parenthood can send its regrets to Harry Reid.

ObamaCare would never have passed if Mr. Franken hadn’t stolen the Minnesota recount and prosecutors hadn’t hidden exculpatory evidence to convict Alaska Republican Ted Stevens on false ethics charges. But liberals are showing that they’ll only need 51 votes, not 60, to pass the next ObamaCare.

Conservatives have more of a stake than liberals do in the legislative filibuster as a check on the political passions of the moment. But the Democrats who rewrote Senate rules on Thursday should also understand that they have now opened the door to repeal ObamaCare with only 51 votes.

***

The long-considered but never invoked “nuclear option” was appealed to at a conspicuous time. The ground is collapsing out from under Democratic feet. In a panic, they are falling back on maneuvers which mitigate immediate pain and provide short-term gains, all the while acknowledging that the risks they are taking are high and the prospect of long-term advantage extremely low.

Take, for example, the spectacular disaster that has become of the Affordable Care Act’s debut. President Barack Obama’s party in Congress abandoned the long game they had played so well over the course of the Republican-led government shutdown within days of the government reopening. When the public’s attention was focused squarely on the problematic website, the waves of insurance cancellations, and price shocks, Democrats panicked…

Once again, Democrats in the Senate knew they were playing with fire. They knew that partisan rancor will increase, that comity was dead, and, rather than increasing the upper chamber’s functionality, this maneuver was more likely to incent the minority to use all the powers still at their disposal to grind Senate business to a halt. Furthermore, they knew that the GOP, once in the majority, would use this precedent to pass not only judicial but possibly Supreme Court nominees, or even legislative initiatives, with a simple majority vote…

Once the filibuster is gone, it’s as good as forever gone. There is no incentive for any majority party to reinstate it. Nor is there any reason to expect that future majorities will respect what’s left of it. If a Democratic minority in 2017 tries to filibuster a Republican Supreme Court nominee, the Republicans will surely follow yesterday’s precedent. The legislative filibuster may prove more robust, but one suspects our hypothetical Republican majority would abolish it if that’s what it takes to repeal ObamaCare.

What’s peculiar about the timing of the Democrats’ decision is that it comes just when the partisan risk of abolishing the filibuster has been heightened…

The abject failure of ObamaCare has made the prospect of a Republican Senate in 2015 and a Republican president in 2017 much likelier. Thus even from a purely partisan standpoint, rational Democrats would have been more cautious about invoking the nuclear option when they did than at just about any other time in the past five years…

[P]rospect theory … posits that people will take bigger risks in the hope of minimizing a loss than in the hope of maximizing a gain. The psychological impact of the loss itself clouds one’s thinking about the risks of magnifying the loss. That explains why the Democrats went nuclear just as the perils of doing so multiplied.

***

The importance of keeping Obamacare front-and-center is dominating the internal discussion of how to respond to Reid’s unprecedented decision to abruptly end the filibuster for nominations with a bare-majority vote. It also explains why Minority Leader Mitch McConnell was relatively muted in his response, telling reporters, “I don’t think this is a time to be talking about reprisal. I think it’s a time to be sad about what’s been done to the United States Senate.”…

One looming question is whether Reid will move to kill the filibuster for legislation, as well.

On that issue, Republicans are of different minds. One senior aide says, “I don’t think people would be surprised by anything Reid did at this point,” while others suspect Senate Democrats are already having second thoughts about how a post-nuclear Senate will operate.

***

My position today is consistent with the position that I took then, that every Senate democrat took then, and that’s just back in 2005. That was to preserve the rights of the Senate minority. I can’t ignore that.

Nor can I ignore the fact that Democrats have used the filibuster on many occasions to advance or protect policies that we believe in. When Republicans controlled the White House, the Senate and the House of Representatives from 2003-2006, it was a Democratic minority in the Senate that blocked a series of bills that would have severely restricted the reproductive rights of women. It was a Democratic minority in the Senate that beat back efforts to limit Americans’ rights to seek justice in our courts when they’re harmed by corporate or medical wrongdoing. It was a Democratic minority in the Senate that stopped the nominations of some to the federal courts who we believed would not provide fair and unbiased judgment. Without the protections afforded the Senate minority, total repeal of the estate tax would have passed the Senate in 2006.

And we don’t have to go back to 2006 to find examples of Senate Democrats using the rules of the Senate to stop passage of what many of us deemed bad legislation. Just this year, these recollections prevented an adoption of an amendment that would have essentially prevented the EPA from protecting waters under the Clean Water Act. We stopped an amendment to allow loaded and concealed weapons on lands managed by the Army Corps of Engineers as a minority with minority votes. As minority votes, we stopped legislation that would have allowed some individuals who were deemed mentally incompetent access to firearms. That’s just the last year. Removing these minority protections risks that in the future important civil and political rights might just disappear because a majority agree that they should.

Democrats say the crippling of the filibuster will make government more efficient and allow legislation to pass more easily. But there is a downside to majoritarianism and the “efficiency” it brings. As Phil Kerpen, author of the 2011 book Denying Democracy, told me: “The filibuster change will make it far more likely that major legislative accomplishments can be swept away in the next swing of the political pendulum. Public policy will be less stable and long-term business planning will be confounded.”

In short, it will make government more unstable. Temporary majorities could pass sweeping legislation on immigration policy, tax law, and regulatory procedures with no bipartisan input — as was done in 2010 with the passage of the now unraveling Obamacare law.

Many people have decried the extent to which the Senate has become a bitter, partisan place with fewer examples of bipartisan consensus building. But giving whichever party has a narrow majority free rein to approve presidential nominees isn’t the solution. Over time, it will become clear that this “cure” is far worse than the disease the snake-oil salesmen behind it claim it is treating.

***

Decades of negative and destructive policies can be reversed with a bare majority. Obamacare can be repealed with a bare majority. True Conservative Judges will not be banished due to a filibuster threat.

Yes, it’s true that the absence of a filibuster could accelerate the destructive policies. That fear is justified, particularly as to the judiciary. But face it, we were headed there anyway unless drastic action was taken.

That drastic action took place yesterday. By Democrats.

Now at least we have a chance to achieve previously unimaginable progress in a single presidential term if we also have bare majorities in Congress and a President with the willpower. It will take only one such term.

Blowback

Trackbacks/Pings

Comments

“I dunno” [[w]ho would disagree with the idea that unapologetic, self-righteous, in-denial gossipers, who avoid direct conflict resolution & chose instead to aggressively mock & abuse, are disrespectable, and deserve to be ignored], but somehow, I just know that it’s“He [who] tells me to avoid direct conflict”with a person who maturely asks impersonal questions, and instead to gossip about them!

Example of gossip: making an accusation at which the accused party balks, ignore, or lie about, the accused party’s willingness to have an adult discussion about it, and indirectly & condescendingly discuss the accusation & the accused party’s reaction with others instead of directly with the accused party.

Facts: some people unknowingly & abusively project their own faults onto others; those on the receiving end of false, projected claims have an absolute right to defend themselves; people who try to undermine this absolute right by insulting them for exerting it are immature & unChrist-like, and are even more pathetic when they whinily deny their own intolerance & abusiveness…

Example of immaturity: avoiding direct discussions about what does & doesn’t constitute mature behavior; made even worse when God & religion are brought into to it by rationalizingly saying that such understandings are beyond puny humans’ abilities to grasp, as though “Christ-like behavior” cannot be defined… :)

I see I’ve really spent enough of my time on a rude, anti-conflict resolving, intolerant, stupid, lazy bum, who should stop feeling entitled to her demands; if she needs, she can go look up words’ definitions herself! :)

Mature, adult behavior? You be the judge…hey, why not try it during a job interview, or at church, and see how well it’d go over? ROFL

The New Christianity: preaching that telling others “GFY” and “STFU – YOU‘RE THE PERSON WITH THE ROID-RAGE ISSUES, NOT I, YOU POMPOUS ASS!” is the kind of behavior Christ expects from those who claim to be His followers.

pambi, I’d ask you further questions, but noticing how often you avoided answering them, instead resorting to childish mockery, I don’t see the need…I’ve concluded that you’re partial to Scrumpy’s infantile screaming at me, that you believe she manages her emotions better than I, and that you believe she has acted justifiably and Biblically. That makes you a kook in my book…

Compare and contrast my behavior here with this: “GFY” & “NOW I WILL TELL YOU RIGHT TO YOU, SHUT THE EFF UP WILL YA!” As I said: “hey, why not try it during a job interview, or at church, and see how well it’d go over?

AC, He’s watched you walk in His anointing, even just recently, as have I.
What has come over you ?
Something has mis-directed your heart, and it grieves many of us.
Some just don’t know how to handle such a turnaround,and He forgives them for their shock & awe.
Can/will you ?

What do you believe I am supposed to be “hearing” from you? “Yes, A-C, I see & respect that we have major differences of opinion, let’s discuss like adults…I’ll start by showing I respect what you’re saying, even when I disagree with it…”?

Do you deny that you’ve mocked or avoided many of my questions rather than just giving simple, direct, and factual answers to them? What do you believe I should be taking away from you avoidance/mockery of them? That your avoidant & mocking attitude is superior to mine, which is 180 degrees opposed to yours?

I can’t help but ask, are you as nuts as you appear to me to be? You keep insisting that I’m angry, which I find to be as irritating and retarded as if you incessantly asked me, “So, have you stopped beating your wife yet?”

I expect you to give another indirect response here…if you can’t understand that this is how I see your approach, there is no point in further discussion, is there?

Look, that factually was a stupid and false statement you made…pambi, I honestly believe you’re delusional & abusive. Would you prefer I deny this or keep it to myself even when I believe it’s proper for me to state it openly?

I’d ask you what you’d suggest is the mature way for me to handle that opinion, but I already know you won’t give a direct answer… :)

I know, it’s been 20+ years of watching the Body in decline, for me, too.
But are we not all members ? Are we not all expected to reflect Him, not ourselves ?
I do not claim anything of myself, anymore. I’m scum, without knowing Him, and following His every footstep !
Otherwise, I crawl into the litter boxes, too. We’re all built that way, and it’s tough to resist.
Frankly, there are days I manage it better than other days (same as other folks, AC) but He never condemns me for those, just sorta rolls His eyes, and tries AGAIN to get through to me, in whatever form or fashion He can.
Like a political blog, perhaps … LOL.

About the real source of your laughter, however? Nope, you’re wrong! I’ve seen it before, it’s unserious and unrighteous – it’s directly related to a ‘“GFY” & “NOW I WILL TELL YOU RIGHT TO YOU, SHUT THE EFF UP WILL YA!”’ attitude…try that avoidant, mocking attitude during a job interview, and see how well it’d go over…

1. Why did you take on an attitude with pambi as shown here?
I will bolden it for you to make it easy to find.
2. Why was it so important to you to nullify her feelings?
3. Why have you no tolerance toward this kind of attitude?
4. Why do you feel that YOU have to speak out against it?
5. Are others feelings so immaterial to you that you have to project how you feel regardless of the other persons feelings?

Just that one sometimes gets weary, feeling it’s all being flushed down the toilet, and feeling powerless.
Humans go there, at times.
pambi on November 21, 2013 at 10:30 PMI don’t understand why you felt the urge to respond to me for saying “Don’t!” to “I give up…”

To me, it’s looks like you did because you’re taking some comfort in your downtrodden feelings. I am not so tolerant of such an attitude, and will speak out against when I see fit whether anyone else likes it or not! :)
Anti-Control on November 21, 2013 at 10:39 PM

I have looked long and hard and contemplated all that A-C has said, not just to you pambi, but to various others since the 21st, and I do sincerely believe, if he chooses to answer me, this will all be cleared up.

I have a funny feeling tho, that he won’t.

I believe his non response will speak volumes!

Do not think for one second I am all that thrilled about a couple things I said either, the ones he has angst with.

Absolutely, the feeling of helplessness, even tho, I have done as much as feasibly possible, much fell on deaf ears, phone calls, emails, letters etc…

The attitude of the GOPe, really had stumped me, but they are simply Dems in disguise, somthing I didn’t expect, I haven’t been involved that much in politics, well not until I came here to HA back in 2011!!

Since we are here, I would like to express my thanks to you for
reading my comment correctly, Thank You!

The one that started this whole mess, that I hope can be cleared up forthwith! :)

Umm, you’re having a problem seeing who has to make the move toward adult behavior here…I AM NOT THE ONE WHO TALKED IN ALL CAPS AND TOLD YOU TO “GFY” AND “SHUT THE EFF UP WILL YA!” AND RIDICULOUSLY ACCUSED YOU OF BEING THE MORE EXCITED ONE!!!

ROFL

One question at a time…

Scrumpy on November 24, 2013 at 1:23 AM

I’ll answer what I see as your most relevant questions (I think the rest will then answer themselves.)

3. Why have you no tolerance toward this kind of attitude?

Because, imo, “taking some comfort in your downtrodden feelings” is emotionally unhealthy, similar to how cig smoking is physically unhealthy.

Did I try to force anyone to not have that attitude?

What led you to believe my “Don’t!” to your “I give up” was said with more force than you used? That is where the problem here lies…you jumped to a conclusion about how I was speaking, and decided to shoot at me before asking enough questions…

4. Why do you feel that YOU have to speak out against it?

Ever heard of, “free speech”? What do you think the “free” part of it means?

What makes you think you’re so important/relevant to my opinions that I should first have to get your approval before I say what I choose?

Your words & behavior indicates to me that I believe in “free” speech more than you…how OK is it with you for me to have & express this opinion?

A_C: Umm, you’re having a problem seeing who has to make the move toward adult behavior here…I AM NOT THE ONE WHO TALKED IN ALL CAPS AND TOLD YOU TO “GFY” AND “SHUT THE EFF UP WILL YA!” AND RIDICULOUSLY ACCUSED YOU OF BEING THE MORE EXCITED ONE!!! ROFL

Me: I have absolutely NO problem…

3. Why have you no tolerance toward this kind of attitude?

Your reply: Because, imo, “taking some comfort in your downtrodden feelings” is emotionally unhealthy, similar to how cig smoking is physically unhealthy. Did I try to force anyone to not have that attitude?

Me: Yes you did! Why do you think I asked the question?

A_C: What led you to believe my “Don’t!” to your “I give up” was said with more force than you used? That is where the problem here lies…you jumped to a conclusion about how I was speaking, and decided to shoot at me before asking enough questions…

Me: You spoke to pambi and said this. Not to me! She expressed how I could be feeling, expressing her right to free speech, and you dumped all over her and thusly me also.

4. Why do you feel that YOU have to speak out against it?

A_C: What makes you think you’re so important/relevant to my opinions that I should first have to get your approval before I say what I choose?

Me: I happened to not like the way you ‘attacked’ pambi for explaining to you how she thought I was feeling and what I meant.
You may express anything you wish to, but expect things to be said back at you when one feels threatened and comes to the aid of one (pambi) whom I believed you were rude to…

1. Why did you take on an attitude with pambi as shown here?
2. Why was it so important to you to nullify her feelings?
5. Are others feelings so immaterial to you that you have to project how you feel regardless of the other persons feelings?

Umm, because you misunderstood me & my intent? You know you have done this repeatedly, both with jovially sarcastic comments I’ve made and more serious ones.

Look on this very page:

I have looked long and hard and contemplated all that A-C has said, not just to you pambi, but to various others since the 21st, and I do sincerely believe, if he chooses to answer me, this will all be cleared up.

I have a funny feeling tho, that he won’t.

I believe his non response will speak volumes!

Scrumpy on November 24, 2013 at 1:54 AM

So, you had a “feeling” I wouldn’t answer you…from where did that inaccurate feeling come, eh? Not from my end – I don’t quit like that!

You do not understand me as well as you keep thinking you do…at what point will you finally admit it?!

So, my other questions are not worthy?

Scrumpy on November 24, 2013 at 2:30 AM

It has nothing to do with their worthiness. What do you believe I meant here?

I’ll answer what I see as your most relevant questions (I think the rest will then answer themselves.)

Anti-Control on November 24, 2013 at 2:11 AM

If any aren’t answered in the course of another one being answered, we can talk about it then. One bridge/step at a time…be patient! :)

I see that you have a penchant to psychoanalyze, not only what I am saying, but others also, I am not in the mood for this ‘game’.

I believe at this point this has become a circular discussion and I see no real end to it at this time and so I am not going to entertain your pursuit of it.

You may, however, think of myself and others as you see fit, free speech and all that, but don’t expect people to act as your doormat, they will say what is necessary in their defense, or say nothing at all.

It would be especially nice though if you kept your thoughts to yourself as to how you see many people here.

I think someone said that ‘you are practising without a license’, I am inclined to agree.

If I deem myself necessary to be psychoanalyzed, I will seek a licensed professional!

Now, think what you will, I do not seek nor need your approval on anything, so, have a good day, and think seriously about what it is that you do!

I sincerely hope you don’t ‘jump’ on anyone else, because I will come to their aid if I deem it needed…

You have in the past, been a nice person, I suggest you find that person and come back and enjoy political discussion once more!

Once again I apologise for saying (gfy) you struck a nerve with me, I do not like to see women being picked on.

I hope you take to heart what pambi has been trying to tell you and also what I have said here, it is not an attempt to ‘shut you up’ but we both hope that you come to your senses!!

I see that you have a penchant to psychoanalyze, not only what I am saying, but others also, I am not in the mood for this ‘game’.

I believe at this point this has become a circular discussion and I see no real end to it at this time and so I am not going to entertain your pursuit of it.

Scrumpy on November 24, 2013 at 12:17 PM

Here’s the “game”, which you immaturely belittle: the conflict can’t be resolved unless the truth is fully admitted first…I went back and reread the first 2 pages of 11/21’s Qotd, and the truth is that your misinterpretation of my comments & telling me “GFY” is what started this incident.

I am going to say my piece about it, and lay out my case – you can do whatever you want with it…

First part:

2. Why was it so important to you to nullify hermy feelings?

Scrumpy on November 24, 2013 at 2:30 AM

This misinterpretation of yours is where the conflict started, I believe…you had said, “I give up”; you did not say, “I feel like giving up.” If you had said the latter, I would have instead said, “Please don’t feel that way”!

Do you see the difference? I was paying attention & being sensitive, noticed what you said, and wasn’t trying to nullify anyone’s feelings by saying, “Don’t!” – to me, I only was countering an attitude/behavior I see as unhealthy, to which I understood you’d be free to respond however you‘d decide…no force was involved in what I did.

Second part:

Me: I have absolutely NO problem…

Yeah, uh huh. Why would someone with “absolutely NO problem” have to say,

Do not think for one second I am all that thrilled about a couple things I said either, the ones he has angst with.

It is what it is and I make no excuses for it.

I said them and that’s that!
I have however asked and prayed for Gods’ forgiveness…

Scrumpy on November 24, 2013 at 1:54 AM

You didn’t need to ask for God’s forgiveness unless there had been a problem…I “rejected” your apology previously, which was my right to do, because I knew it wasn’t sincere enough; you ended up proving me correct, because no one who’s truly sorry would get angry after it’s been rejected, as you did with me.

To end your anger cycle, you need to stop denying, get to the root of your anger, and directly deal with what’s causing you to fly off the handle so badly that you later need to apologize. I can’t trust you until that happens…

Is that you talking to me, Jesus? How loving & constructive of you, Jesus! ROFL

Got any facts to back up your statement of opinion, or are you only able to stick with, “You’re an idiot for not agreeing with me, and since you’re an idiot, I won’t bother explaining myself to you”? Since I believe that you’re guilty of projection, I think you‘re the arrogant, condescending, narcissistic little peckerwood between us. How’s that? :)

You don’t even have a point here – you sound like a childish, brain-damaged leftard who can’t talk about matters in a reasonable manner. Think this isn’t the case? Then try proving me wrong! [email protected]!

Where’s your evidence to show that you support my right to believe that you’re guilty of projection? Where’s your evidence to show that you support my right to defend myself as I see fit against people I see as abusive? Your behavior shows that you don’t believe in “Stand Your Ground”, I can see that, you arrogant, condescending, narcissistic little peckerwood. :)

This whole deal started when you jumped all over pambi and would not accept what she said about what I said, and you are still going at it!

You didn’t have to look far, but in looking, you did not see, or chose not to.

No biggie tho, you will always see things how you wish and will no doubt not spare your explanations as to why me or anyone else for that matter just don’t come up to your expectations or explanations of who and what we are.

I knew you would jump on my comment, ((Do not think for one second I am all that thrilled about a couple things I said either, the ones he has angst with. It is what it is and I make no excuses for it. I said them and that’s that! I have however asked and prayed for Gods’ forgiveness… Scrumpy on November 24, 2013 at 1:54 AM)) it’s why I said what I did, and you sure didn’t disappoint! Angry cuz you rejected my apology? Sorry sonny, your really are delusional, happy you fell for my comment above, hook line and sinker :).

I suggest you run along now, and go play with someone else, I am frankly quite tired of your shenanigans :)

Quite frankly, you are the leftard here, I have dealt with lefties who use the very same tactics, I mean, we see the left do it all the time, know what I mean, and there you are doing the self same thing, you get real personal and nasty, and then when it comes back at you, similar as what you dish out to others, you use the excuse that your poor widdle feewings are hurted, to argue with folks ): Grow up.

Quite frankly, you are the leftard here, I have dealt with lefties who use the very same tactics, I mean, we see the left do it all the time, know what I mean, and there you are doing the self same thing, you get real personal and nasty, and then when it comes back at you, similar as what you dish out to others, you use the excuse that your, to argue with folks ): Grow up.

Be a man, and quit picking on the Ladies ’round here, got that?

Scrumpy on November 24, 2013 at 8:01 PM

Yeah, you calling me sexist is unlike what leftards do, and isn’t a sign that someone’s “poor widdle feewings are hurted”…when I have my problems with williamg, is that a form of my “sexism,” too? [email protected] & your whiny retardation!

I think Solaratov is an arrogant, condescending, narcissistic little peckerwood, like he accuses me. I think people who defend him while denying my right to defend myself against his abuse are leftarded & dishonest.

Deal with my differing opinions like an adult instead of a raging baby! =P

Nothing ends up right
When you’re caught in a crazeWhy don’t you grow up
Come on now act your age
Oh when you lose your cool
You lose your reason too
You shouldn’t say those things
Oh when your face is red

Why don’t you sit back
And just be worldly and wise
When you shoot your mouth off
You never apologize, no!Oh when you lose your cool
You look so stupid too
You shouldn’t say those things
Oh when your face is red

I’ll post my response in this thread, because I feel like I’m walking on egg shells with you, not knowing what will set you off.

Not sure if you’ll see it here, but…

I noticed you mentioned that your doc told you to cut out caffeine…maybe a correlation with that?

I’ve dealt with caffeine use…I know what happens to me when I am not getting as much into my system as it needs, and it definitely has a negative impact on my life – I don’t think or focus as well, and it causes me to feel lousy overall physically.

Anti-Control on November 24, 2013 at 11:16 PM

No adverse effects.

Scrumpy on November 24, 2013 at 11:28 PM

“No adverse effects?”

Would you explain what “my system can’t take it” meant, then? Because it looks like a contradiction…

My Dr told me to quit anything with caffeine in it, so it’s all decaf tea and coffee now, my system can’t take it…

Because of medications I take for 2 genetic diseases I have, it was advised that I refrain from caffeine as it is an irritant, I suffer no adverse effects from not having it… Thanks for your concern.

Scrumpy on November 25, 2013 at 12:41 AM

I hope you aren’t being sarcastic or cold as you say that…I wish we got along better; I know we’ll do the best we can! :)

People who’ll insult & scream at others while denying that they themselves are the real problem are not very much fun to deal with, are they? I’ve realized from this incident that I need to do a better job avoiding talking with people who tend to be angry, hardheaded, and unforgiving…I know there are plenty of pleasant, easygoing people in the world who aren’t like that, and I choose to focus on them while ignoring their opposites!